Schizophrenia Bulletin vol. 32 no. S1 pp.
S44–S63, 2006
doi:10.1093/schbul/sbl029
Advance Access publication on August 17, 2006
The Functional Significance of Social Cognition in Schizophrenia: A Review
Shannon M. Couture, David L. Penn1, and
David L. Roberts
Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill, CB #3270, Davie Hall, Chapel Hill,
NC 27599-3270
Deficits in a wide array of functional outcome areas (eg,
social functioning, social skills, independent living skills,
etc) are marked in schizophrenia. Consequently, much re-
cent research has attempted to identify factors that may
contribute to functional outcome; social cognition is one
such domain. The purpose of this article is to review re-
search examining the relationship between social cogni-
tion and functional outcome. Comprehensive searches of
PsycINFO and MEDLINE/PUBMED were conducted to
identify relevant published manuscripts to include in the
current review. It is concluded that the relationship between
social cognition and functional outcome depends on the spe-
cific domains of each construct examined; however, it can
generally be concluded that there are clear and consistent
relationships between aspects of functional outcome and
social cognition. These findings are discussed in light of
treatment implications for schizophrenia.
Key words: social functioning/emotion perception/
social perception/theory of mind
Deficits in social functioning, including communicating
with others, maintaining employment, and functioning
in the community, are observed in many disorders but
are a defining feature of schizophrenia.1 Indeed, social
functioning deficits are evident premorbidly in those
who later develop schizophrenia2,3 and are often present
in first-degree relatives of individuals with schizophre-
nia.4 Impaired social functioning also impacts the quality
of life5 and predicts outcome in schizophrenia, including
relapse, poor illness course, and unemployment.6–8 Thus,
social dysfunction is a hallmark characteristic of schizo-
phrenia that has important implications for the develop-
ment, course, and outcome of this illness.
One of the challenges to research in this area is incon-
sistent definitions of social functioning. This term has
1
To whom correspondence should be addressed; tel: 919-843-
7514, fax: 919-962-2537, e-mail: dpenn@email.unc.edu.
Ó The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center. All rights reserved.
For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.
S44
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article-abstract/32/suppl_1/S44/1916905
by guest
on 20 February 2018
been used to apply to self- or other report of interpersonal
behaviors, behavior in community settings (eg, skill rat-
ings while shopping), skills of independent living (eg,
self-care skills, grooming, financial skills, etc), ratings
of social skill in laboratory settings (eg, role-play tests),
and ratings of social problem-solving skills. Accordingly,
some researchers have taken to describing this conglom-
eration of domains as ‘‘functional outcome,’’ a broader
term used to encapsulate all these diverse areas.9,10 This
review also uses this term, recognizing that it includes
strictly social behaviors as well as behaviors that are
less purely social, such as engaging in activities in the
community and caring for oneself.
Given the critical role of functional outcome in schizo-
phrenia, there has been growing interest in factors that
may underlie it. If the nature of these factors can be de-
lineated, interventions may be devised to ameliorate
them, which, in turn, may have a concomitant impact
on long-term outcome. Neurocognition is one such
factor. Whereas most previous research supports a sig-
nificant relationship between at least one aspect of
neurocognition and functional outcome, the amount of
variance accounted for is typically rather modest.5,9,11
In fact, although Green et al11 reported that 20% to
60% of the variance in functional outcome could be
explained by composite measures of neurocognition,
the variance accounted for in most of the studies was
only in the 20% to 40% range; studies reporting variance
estimates of greater than 40% were the exception, rather
than the rule. Thus, anywhere from 60% to 80% of the
variance in functional outcome is unaccounted for by tra-
ditional neurocognitive measures, spurring researchers
to continue searching for other contributing factors.11
More recently, social cognition has been identified as a
likely contributor to functional outcome. Brothers12(p28)
defined social cognition as the ‘‘mental operations under-
lying social interactions, which include the human ability
and capacity to perceive the intentions and dispositions
of others.’’ Similarly, Adolphs13(p231) identified social cog-
nition as ‘‘the ability to construct representations of the
relation between oneself and others and to use those rep-
resentations flexibly to guide social behavior.’’ Thus, the
theory implies a close association between social cogni-
tion and functional outcome because the ability to
quickly process social stimuli is essential for social in-
teractions, and problems in this area can impact peer,
 S. M. Couture et al.
romantic, and family relationships as well as work/school
behavior. In addition, social cognition may impact the
functional outcome of independent living skills because
accurately assessing social cues from the environment
(such as someone responding to body odor by increasing
bodily distance or making a facial expression of disgust),
and having the social opportunities necessary to learn
skills such as home and financial care, may be a necessary
prerequisite for making improvements in daily living
skills.
There is general consensus that neurocognition and so-
cial cognition are related, but different constructs.5 For
example, research examining the neural underpinnings
of neurocognitive and social cognitive abilities14–19 sug-
gest semi-independent systems for processing nonsocial
and social stimuli. In addition, there appears to be
only a modest association between neurocognition and
social cognition.20–26 Thus, social cognition may contrib-
ute to functional outcome in a way that is not redundant
with neurocognition.
The purpose of this article is to review the extant re-
search on the relationship between social cognition
and functional outcome, with an eye toward implications
for social cognition as a potential treatment target for
schizophrenia. Before a meaningful description of the
reviewed studies can occur, definitions of the relevant
constructs and a conceptual model are needed.
Definitions
Social cognition is a broad construct encompassing many
abilities. The ones identified and studied most frequently
in the schizophrenia literature are emotion perception
(EP), social perception (SP), theory of mind (ToM),
and attributional style (AS).27 EP (also called emotion
recognition, affect recognition, or affect perception) is
the ability to infer emotional information (ie, what a per-
son is feeling) from facial expressions, vocal inflections
(ie, prosody), or some combination of these (ie, video
clips). SP refers to a person’s ability to ascertain social
cues from behavior provided in a social context, which
includes, but is not limited to, emotion cues.27 SP is
also closely tied to social knowledge, which refers to a per-
son’s comprehension of social rules and conventions (eg,
as stored in social schemas); thus, these 2 abilities will be
grouped together. ToM involves both the ability to un-
derstand that others have mental states different from
one’s own and the capability to make correct inferences
about the content of those mental states (eg, others’
intentions or beliefs). ToM is typically operationalized
as participants’ ability to understand false beliefs (first-
or second-order ToM) or the ability to understand verbal
hints. AS refers to an individual’s characteristic tenden-
cies in explaining the causes of events in their lives. Re-
search indicates that individuals with persecutory
delusions and/or paranoia tend to blame others, rather
S45
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article-abstract/32/suppl_1/S44/1916905
by guest
on 20 February 2018
than situations, for negative outcomes, an AS known
as a personalizing bias.28
The personalizing bias can be understood within a so-
cial information–processing framework. Specifically, it
has been demonstrated that when forming impressions
of others, nonclinical controls automatically make dispo-
sitional judgments and only subsequently ‘‘correct’’ for
situational factors.29 For example, if you meet someone
and they are not friendly, you might infer that they are
a rude person. However, if you subsequently learn that
the person had just received bad news (eg, someone in
their family had died), you would correct that impression
in light of the contextual information. Thus, individuals
with persecutory delusions do not engage in the second
stage of modifying initial impressions. This may be
due to a number of factors, including the possibility
that individuals with persecutory beliefs have a strong
need ‘‘for closure’’ (ie, a desire to get a specific answer
on a topic or issue, rather than dealing with ambigu-
ity),30,31 impaired cognitive flexibility, which prevents
individuals with delusions from entertaining other
causal hypotheses,32,33 and problems with ToM, which
has shown an association with personalizing biases in
both nonclinical and clinical samples.34–36
A Conceptual Model of Social Cognition and
Functional Outcome
Figure 1 presents our conceptual model of social cogni-
tion, as well as its proposed link with functional outcome.
The model includes an example of a particular social sit-
uation (the reaction of a client with schizophrenia to a co-
worker who has rushed past him without saying hello) in
order to explicate how this model would operate. First,
the client may misperceive the emotional expression on
the coworker’s face to be anger, rather than upset or
stressed, and attend to the social cues of rushing past,
without observing additional information present in
the situation. These misperceptions may then result in
the client making a faulty conclusion that the coworker
is angry. Subsequently, the next phase of processing
involves the client’s generation of an explanation of
why the coworker is angry. Biases in AS, such as a per-
sonalizing bias, led the client to conclude that the co-
worker is ‘‘angry at me,’’ a bias that is not corrected
because the client has difficulty putting himself in the
coworker’s position (ie, deficits in ToM). In other words,
the client is unable to grasp the ‘‘emotional and social
context’’ of the coworker’s behavior. This results in
the client feeling angry and resentful toward the co-
worker, which causes him to act in an unfriendly manner
toward the coworker in the future (ie, inappropriate so-
cial behavior), who in turn avoids the client. This culmi-
nates in an increase in the client’s general discomfort at
work, thus affecting life satisfaction, and creating a vi-
cious cycle whereby the client will anticipate negative

Fig. 1. Conceptual Framework for Understanding the Interplay Between Social Cognition and Social Functioning.
interactions in the future but does not seek information
that may contradict these expectations.37 Thus, his rela-
tionships at work will become strained, via difficulties in
initiating interactions with others (ie, problems in social
skill), via problems in reacting to problems at work (ie,
problems in social problem solving), or due to being un-
able to carry out his work activities (ie, as a result of being
distracted by his anger toward coworkers). Therefore,
according to this model, impairments (or biases) in social
cognition can impact a variety of indices of functional
outcome.
Search Strategy
A comprehensive search of the PsycINFO and MED-
LINE/PUBMED databases was conducted. Within the
domain of social cognition, the following search terms
were used: (1) SP, (2) emotion/affect perception, (3) emo-
tion/affect recognition, (4) attributions/AS, (5) ToM, (6)
mentalizing/mentalising, (7) social cognition, (8) pros-
ody, (9) social knowledge, (10) mind reading, (11) social
cue, and (12) social judgment. Within the domain of func-
tional outcome, the following terms were used: (1) func-
tional outcome, (2) independent living skills/skills of daily
living, (3) community/social functioning, (4) work/occu-
pational/vocational functioning, (5) social skill, (6) quality
of life, (7) community/social behavior, (8) life satisfaction,
(9) social adjustment/dysfunction, and (10) employment.
Search terms for schizophrenia included the following:
(1) psychosis, (2) schizophrenia, and (3) schizoaffective
disorder.
The results from these searches were evaluated for rel-
evance; that is, only studies including at least one statis-
tical technique (ie, correlation, regression, structural
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article-abstract/32/suppl_1/S44/1916905
by guest
on 20 February 2018
Social Cognition and Functional Outcome
equation modeling, t tests, etc) for evaluating the rela-
tionship between an aspect of social cognition and func-
tional outcome were included in this review. The majority
of studies included assessment at only one time point,
although 2 studies38,39 included assessment of abilities
1 year after baseline as well.
Domains Comprising the Review
For purpose of clarity, we describe below the most com-
monly used measures within each domain of social cog-
nition and functional outcome that are the focus of this
review. Following this, we summarize the findings on the
relationship between social cognition and functional out-
come in the text, and in tables 1–4, we provide informa-
tion on each study’s measures, results, and effect sizes.
Effect sizes were obtained via examination of all provided
correlation coefficients in the reviewed studies. In instan-
ces when a correlation coefficient was not available, the
percentage of variance accounted for or a t statistic was
converted to a correlation. Ranges for effect sizes are as
follows: #.1 (minimal to small), .1–.3 (small to > moder-
ate), .3–.5 (moderate to large), .5 and above (large), which
is in concert with commonly used conventions in the
field.40 In addition, power estimates for each study
were calculated for a moderate effect size (r = .3) to
determine if the reviewed studies were underpowered
(ie, power less than .80).
Due to the fact that social cognition is a multifaceted
construct, we have grouped studies in terms of the most
common social cognitive domains in the field27,41 (ie, SP,
EP, ToM, and AS). Four measures of SP were com-
mon across studies: the Social Cue Recognition Test
(SCRT, included in 3 of the 12 SP studies),42,43 the Schema
S46
 S. M. Couture et al.

Table 1. Social Perception (SP) and Functional Outcome (FO) in Schizophrenia (S)

Study Participants SC Measures FO Measures Major Findings

Appelo et al59 39 S inpatients Picture Social behavior in d SP predicted 34% of the

Addington et al65
Corrigan and Toomey66
Kim et al63
MA = 30 Arrangement milieu: Staff ratings variance in social behavior in
Male: 71.8% from WAIS-R on general behavior milieu (P < .0001)
Yrs Ed: 10 subscale from d SP did not predict social
Yrs Ill: 7 rehabilitation skills (did not include
Clor eq: ? evaluation statistics)
SSIT d Effect size for social
behavior is large (r = .58);
unable to detect for social
skill
d Power for effect size of r = .3
is 0.451
50 FE inpatients SCRT, SFRT Community d In both groups, scores on
MA = 25 functioning: QLS SCRT and SFRT associated
Male: 60% Social problem solving: with QLS at baseline and 1 y
Yrs Ed: 66% AIPSS later (r = .25 to .39, P < .01)
completed and with AIPSS at both
12th grade time points (r = .33 to .51,
Yrs ill: <3 mo P < .011)
treatment d SP composite predicted 7.8%
Clor eq: 307/380 (P < .05) and 15.2% (P<
(1st/2nd assess) .0001) of the variance in QLS
53 S outpatients at baseline and 1 y,
MA = 35 respectively
Male: 71.6% d SP composite predicted
Yrs Ed: 71% 19.4% (P < .0001) and 24%
completed (P < .0001) of the variance in
12th grade AIPSS at baseline and 1 y
Yrs Ill:? > 3 y d In a series of regressions
Clor eq: 715/665 using composite SP and
(1st/2nd assess) composite cognition, found
evidence to support SP as
a mediator for QLS, and
particularly for AIPSS
d Most effect sizes appear to be
small to moderate (not all
correlations were provided)
d Power for effect size of r = .3
is 0.869
26 S or SA SCRT Social problem d SCRT correlated with
inpatients solving: AIPSS sending skills at Bonferroni
MA = 34 level (r = .73, P < .001)
Male: 6.9% d After partialling out effects
Yrs Ed: 12.2 of verbal memory and
Yrs Ill: ;14.3 learning, the effects remained
Clor eq: 1218 but were slightly reduced
d Effect sizes were all large
d Power for effect size of r = .3
is 0.309
14 S outpatients Biological Community function: d Biological motion perception
MA = 38 motion task Zigler Social was associated with
Male: 64% Competence Scale community functioning
Yrs Ed: 12 scores in full sample (r = .71,
Yrs Ill: 14.5 P < .0001)
Clor eq: 290 d This is equivalent to a large
effect
d Power for effect size of r = .3
is 0.170

S47
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article-abstract/32/suppl_1/S44/1916905
by guest
on 20 February 2018
 Social Cognition and Functional Outcome

Table 1. Continued

Study Participants SC Measures FO Measures Major Findings

Penn et al60 35 S or SA SCST-R, GPT, SMT Social behavior in d Social competence associated
residents of milieu—NOSIE: staff with SCST-R scales (r = .34,
acute care ratings for social ÿ.35, .42, P’s < .05) but not
MA = 35 competence, social SMT or GPT
Male: 82.8% interest, neatness d Social Interest associated
Yrs Ed: 11.3 with SCST-R scales (r =
Yrs Ill: ? ÿ.38, ÿ.43, ÿ.47, ÿ.50, P’s <
Clor eq: 738 .05) but not SMT or GPT
d Neatness associated with
SMT (r = .37, P < .05) and
SCST-R (r = .47, P < .05) but
not GPT
d Many correlations were not
provided; those given are all
moderate to large range
effects
d Power for effect size of
r = .3 is 0.409
Revheim and 87 S or SA WAIS-R Community status d Significant difference in SP
Medalia64 inpatients Comprehension (inpatient or based on community status
75 S or SA outpatient) (t = ÿ2.50, P < .01), and it
outpatients was a significant predictor in
MA = 37 logistic regression (r = .12)
Male: 62.3% d This is equivalent to a small to
Yrs Ed: 11.1 moderate range effect (r = .19)
Yrs Ill: ~14 d Power for effect size of r = .3
Clor eq: ? is 0.973
Sergi et al10 75 S Outpatients Half-PONS Community functioning: d SP significantly correlated
MA = 47 RFS independent with work functioning
Male: 92% living, social (r = .36, P < .01) and
Yrs Ed: 13.0 functioning, and work independent living (r = .33,
Yrs Ill: 21.2 functioning subscales P < .05) but not social
Clor eq: ? (used as latent functioning (r = .11)
variable) d SEM revealed SP was
predicted by early visual
processing (b = .57, P < .05)
and SP predicted RFS (b =
.44, P < .05); the significant
indirect effect of early visual
processing on RFS but
nonsignificant direct effect
suggests mediation
d Early visual processing and
SP together accounted for
18% of the variance in RFS
d 33.3% of the effect sizes were
small to moderate range, and
66.7% were moderate to large
range
d Power for effect size of r = .3
is 0.742
Toomey et al67 29 S inpatients PONS Social problem solving: d Controlling for WRAT-R,
MA = 34 AIPSS correlations between AIPSS
Male: 68.9% and PONS was significant the
Yrs Ed: 12.5 role play (content r = .52, P <
Yrs Ill: 14.3 .01, performance r = .50, P <
Clor eq: 1090.7 .01, overall r = .51, P < .01)
d All of the effect sizes were
large
d Power for effect size of
r = .3 is 0.343

S48
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article-abstract/32/suppl_1/S44/1916905
by guest
on 20 February 2018
 S. M. Couture et al.

Table 1. Continued

Study Participants SC Measures FO Measures Major Findings

Vauth et al61 133 S inpatients SFRT, SCST-R Social behavior on d SFRT correlated with social
MA = 28 milieu: Social Skills skills (r = .28, P < .01) and
Male: 64.7% and Personal personal presentation
Yrs Ed: ? Presentation subscales (r = .31, P < .001)
Yrs Ill: 6.6 from WPP d SCST-R correlated with
Clor eq: ? social skills (r = .23, P < .01)
and personal presentation
(r = .28, P < .01)
d SEM analyses revealed 25%
of the variance in WPP was
accounted for by SP and
neurocognition latent
variables; SP alone
accounted for 10% of the
variance
d 75% of the effect sizes were
small to moderate range, and
25% were moderate to large
range
d Power for effect size of
r = .3 is 0.940

Note: SC = Social Cognition; SA = Schizoaffective; FE = First Episode; MA = Mean Age; Yrs Ed = Years of Education; Yrs Ill =
Number of Years Ill; Clor eq = Chlorpromazine equivalent (mg/d); AIPSS = Assessment of Interpersonal Problem Solving Skills57;
GPT = Gilbert-Pelham Task107; QLS = Quality of Life Scale56; NOSIE = Nurse’s Observation Scale for Inpatient Evaluation53;
PONS = Profile of Nonverbal Sensitivity45; Rehabilitation Evaluation108; RFS = Role Functioning Scale55; SEM = Structural Equation
Modeling; SCRT = Social Cue Recognition Test42,43; SCST-R = Schema Component Sequencing Task-Revised44; SSIT = Simulated
Social Interaction Test109; SMT = Situation Matching Task (T. Ferman, unpublished data, 1993); SFRT = Situational Features
Recognition Test42,43; WAIS-R = Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales-Revised110; WPP = Work Personality Profile111; Zigler Social
Competence Scale.112

Component Sequencing Task-Revised (SCST-R, 4 of
12 studies),44 the Profile of Nonverbal Sensitivity
(PONS, 2 of 12 studies),45 and the Situational Features
Recognition Test (SFRT, 2 of 12 studies).42,43 Two of
these measures require judgments about short videotaped
vignettes (eg, SCRT and PONS) and are clearly SP in na-
ture, whereas the SCST-R and SFRT assess social knowl-
edge. Additional, less commonly used measures of SP are
presented in tables 1 and 4.
Within the domain of EP, the most consistently used
measure was the Facial Emotion Identification Task
(FEIT, tables 2 and 4; 6 of 10 studies).46 In the FEIT,
participants choose from among 6 emotion words
(happy, angry, afraid, sad, surprised, and ashamed) to
describe the facial expression depicted in black-and-white
photographs. Other studies used similar measures, in-
cluding the Pictures of Facial Affect (3 of 10 studies)47
and the Facial Emotion Discrimination Test (3 of 10
studies).46 In addition, EP was also measured via other
modalities, such as measures of vocal affect perception
(2 of 10 studies, Vocal Emotion Identification Test),46
and video tasks including both vocal and facial affect
cues (Bell-Lysaker Emotion Recognition Test),48 and
the Videotape Affect Perception Test,49 included in 3
of 10 studies).
S49
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article-abstract/32/suppl_1/S44/1916905
by guest
on 20 February 2018
The only consistently utilized ToM measure was the
Hinting Task (tables 3 and 4; 2 of 4 studies),50 which
requires participants to listen to a story presented ver-
bally and ascertain what one character intends when
she/he provides a verbal hint to another character. Other
studies used some form of ToM ‘‘story’’ (either verbally,
with cartoons, or both), which required participants to
ascertain characters’ false beliefs. Finally, AS was typi-
cally assessed with a questionnaire that described various
situations (eg, your friend forgot to pick you up from
work), following which, participants are asked to devise
an explanation for why this event occurred. These explan-
ations are often coded by the participant him/herself (eg,
whether the outcome was due to themselves or others) or
by research assistants (eg, for how much the responses
involves an internal or external attribution and/or a
hostile response).51,52
As functional outcome is also a multifaceted construct
that has been measured in diverse ways, we have divided
most measures of functional outcome into 4 main areas
as follows: social behavior in the milieu, community func-
tioning, social skills, and social problem solving. Social
behavior in the milieu is comprised of staff-rated assess-
ments of the participants’ behavior in a variety of treat-
ment settings. Examples of measures included in this
 Social Cognition and Functional Outcome

Table 2. Emotion Perception (EP) and Functional Outcome (FO) in Schizophrenia (S)

Study Participants SC Measures FO Measures Major Findings

Brekke et al38 139 S or SA FEIT, VEIT, and Community d Global functioning was
outpatients Videotape Affect functioning—RFS: significantly related to EP at
MA = 38 Perception Test; total score, work, baseline (r = .35, P < .01) and
Male: 69% created a composite of social functioning, and 12 mo (r = .30, P < .01).
Yrs Ed: 11.9 these 3 measures independent living Results held in path model
Yrs Ill: 13.9 subscales; combined in and neurocognition had
Clor eq: ? composite for global a significant indirect effect
functioning through EP on global
functioning at baseline and
12 mo
d Work functioning was
significantly related to EP at
baseline (r = .22, P < .01) and
12 mo (r = .27, P < .01).
Results held in path analysis
and EP was a mediator
between neurocognition and
work functioning at baseline
and 12 mo
d Social functioning was
significantly related to EP at
baseline (r = .25, P < .01) and
12 mo (r = .18, P < .05).
Results held in path model
and EP mediated the
relationship between
neurocognition and social
functioning
d Independent living was
significantly related to EP at
baseline (r = .31, P < .01) and
12 mo (r = .26, P < .01).
Results held in path model
and EP was again a mediator
d 62.5% of effects were small to
moderate range, and 37.5%
were moderate to large range
d Power for effect size of r = .3
is 0.949
Cohen et al70 28 S Inpatients FEIT Social skills: role-play d SAS-II correlated with FEIT
MA = 33 test (r = .38, P < .05), but role
Male: 85.7% Social behavior in play was not correlated with
Yrs Ed: 11.9 milieu: 5 social FEIT (r = .24)
Yrs Ill: 12.9 behavior questions d In regression with cognitive
Clor eq: ? from SAS-II composite, FEIT accounted
for nonsignificant
proportions of the variance:
1% in role-play test
(cognition 24%, P < .01)
and 8% in SAS-II (cognition
13%, NS)
d There was a small to
moderate range effect for
social skills and a moderate
to large range effect for social
behavior in the milieu
d Power for effect size of r = .3
is 0.332

S50
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article-abstract/32/suppl_1/S44/1916905
by guest
on 20 February 2018
 S. M. Couture et al.

Table 2. Continued

Study Participants SC Measures FO Measures Major Findings

Hooker and 20 S inpatients Biehl Facial Affect Social behavior in d No significant relationship
Park71 MA = 39 Recognition, Nowicki milieu: SDI with 8 between SDI total and EP
Male: 75% and Duke Vocal subscales measures in omnibus test
Yrs Ed: 12.7 Affect Recognition Note—only 14 d Facial EP significantly
Yrs Ill: 18.8 participants correlated with
Clor eq: 1043 completed this communication/social
measure dysfunction (r = ÿ.59,
P < .05), occupation
dysfunction (r = ÿ.56,
P < .05), and with Public
self (social behavior) at
trend level (r = ÿ.46,
P < .10) but not
independent living,
family or other relationships,
or community/recreational
functioning
d Vocal EP correlated with
occupation dysfunction
(r = ÿ.58, P < .05)
but not communication/social
functioning (r = ÿ.1), public
self (r = ÿ.1), independent
living, family or other
relationships, or community/
recreation functioning
d Significant effects are
moderate to large;
nonsignificant correlations
were not provided
d Power for effect size r = .3 is
0.240
Kee et al39 81 S or SA outpatients Measured at baseline Measured at baseline d At baseline, EP composite
MA = 38 and 12 mo: FEIT, and 12 mo—SCOS: correlated with work
Male: 77.8% VEIT, and Videotape Social Contacts and functioning/independent
Yrs Ed: 12.1 Affect Perception Useful Employment living (r = .36, P < .01)
Yrs Ill: 13.6 Test; created RFS: work productivity, but not social functioning/
Clor eq: ? a composite of these 3 independent living, family relationships (r = .009)
measures relationships with d At 12 mo (concurrent),
family and spouse, EP related to work
relationships with functioning/independent
friends living (r = .29, P < .05)
Community but not social functioning/
function—Split family relationships
measures into 2 (r = .05)
factors: work d Baseline EP correlated with
functioning/ work functioning/
independent living and independent living at
social functioning/ 12 mo (r = .41, P < .001)
family relationships but not social functioning/
family relationships
(r = .04)
d 50% of effect sizes were
minimal to small range,
16.7% were small to moderate
range, and 33.3% were
moderate to
large range
d Power for effect size of r = .3
is 0.776

S51
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article-abstract/32/suppl_1/S44/1916905
by guest
on 20 February 2018
 Social Cognition and Functional Outcome

Table 2. Continued

Study Participants SC Measures FO Measures Major Findings

Mueser et al72 28 S or SA inpatients FEIT, FEDT Social skill: ratings of d For social skills, FEIT related
MA = 45 social skill from to nonverbal paralinguistic
Male: 47% conversation probes skills (eg, meshing, fluency,
Yrs Ed: 11 Social behavior in etc; r = .37, P < .05) but not
Yrs Ill: ~23 milieu—SBS: social verbal content (r = ÿ.04) or
Clor eq: 650 mixing, inappropriate overall social skill (r = .30).
behavior, altered The FEDT was not related to
activity level, personal any of these skills (nonverbal
appearance subscales r = .20, verbal content r = .06,
overall r = .14)
d For SBS, FEIT related to
social mixing (r = ÿ.45, P <
.01) and personal appearance
(r = ÿ.61, P < .001) but not
inappropriate behavior (r =
ÿ.02) or altered activity
(r = ÿ.11)
d For SBS, FEDT related to
social mixing (r = ÿ.35, P <
.05), activity level (r = ÿ.34, P
< .05), and personal
appearance (r = ÿ.38, P <
.05) but not inappropriate
behavior (r = ÿ.16)
d For social skills, 33.3% of
effect sizes were minimal to
small range, 33.3% were small
to moderate range, and 33.3%
were moderate to large range
d For social behavior in the
milieu, 12.5% of effect sizes
were minimal to small range,
25% were small to moderate
range, 50% were moderate to
large range, and 12.5% were
large
d Power for effect size of r = .3
is 0.332
Poole et al74 40 S or SA outpatients Composite of Ekman Community d EP correlated with QLS total
MA = 41 and Friesen’s Pictures function—QLS: (r = .36, P < .05),
Male: 77.5% of Facial Affect and interpersonal interpersonal relations (r =
Yrs Ed: 13 Vocal Affect relations, vocation, .35, P < .05), and community
Yrs Ill: ? Recognition from community participation (r = .39, P <
Clor eq: 300 Florida Affect Battery participation subscales .01) but not vocation (r = .03)
and total score d After partialling out
cognition, EP correlated with
household relations (r = .35, P
< .05) and social activity (r =
.34, P < .05) on the QLS
d 25% of the effects were
minimal to small range, and
75% were moderate to large
range
d Power for effect size of r = .3
is 0.461

Note: SC = Social Cognition; NC = Neurocognition; SA = Schizoaffective; MA = Mean Age; NS = Not Significant; Yrs Ed = Years of
Education; Yrs Ill = Number of Years Ill; Clor eq = Chlorpromazine equivalent (mg/d); Biehl Facial Affect Recognition113; FEIT =
Facial Emotion Identification Task46; FEDT = Facial Emotion Discrimination Task46; Nowicki and Duke Vocal Affect
Recognition114; QLS = Quality of Life Scale56; Pictures of Facial Affect47; RFS = Role Functioning Scale55; SAS-II = Social
Adjustment Scale-II115; SBS = Social Behavior Scale54; SCOS = Strauss and Carpenter Outcome Scale116; SDI = Social Dysfunction
Index117; VEIT = Vocal Emotion Identification Task46; Videotape Affect Perception Task.49

S52
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article-abstract/32/suppl_1/S44/1916905
by guest
on 20 February 2018
 S. M. Couture et al.

Table 3. Theory of Mind (ToM) or Attributional Style (AS) and Functional Outcome (FO) in Schizophrenia (S)

Study Participants SC Measures FO Measures Major Findings

Pollice et al76 44 S or SA outpatients First-order ToM from Community d Global community

MA = 33 Sally and Anne and function—Disability functioning correlated
Male: 77.3% Cigarettes tasks; Assessment Schedule: with combined ToM
Yrs Ed: 11.6 second-order ToM Self-care, social (r = .43, P < .01)
Yrs Ill: 10.6 from Ice Cream Van contact, work activity, and second-order
Clor eq: 289 and Burglar tasks; global rating of ToM (r = .30, P < .05)
also combined community but not first-order
measures for global functioning made by ToM (r = .276); effects
ToM score interviewer remained or were
strengthened after
partialling out IQ;
second-order ToM
explained 15% of the
variance in global
community
functioning in stepwise
regression
d Poor self-care and
combined ToM
significantly correlated
after partialling out IQ
(r = ÿ.367, P < .05)
but not before
(r = ÿ.002); not
related to second-
order (r = ÿ.216)
or first-order ToM
(r = ÿ.017)
d ToM not related to
poor social contact
(first order, r = ÿ.078;
second order,
r = ÿ.148; combined,
r = ÿ.201)
d ToM not associated
with work ability (first
order, r = ÿ.026;
second order,
r = ÿ.085; combined,
r = ÿ.020)
d 41.7% of effects were
minimal to large
range, 33.3% were
small to moderate
range, and 25% were
moderate to large
range
d Power for effect size of
r = .3 is 0.501
Schenkel et al77 42 S or SA inpatients Hinting Task Premorbid social d Group differences on
MA = 41 functioning coded ToM between poor
Male: 60% from charts and good premorbid
Yrs Ed: 12.1 social functioning
Yrs Ill: ? groups (t(40) = 3.86,
Clor eq: ? P < .0001)
d This is equivalent to
a large effect size
(r = .52)
d Power for effect size
of r = .3 is 0.481

S53
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article-abstract/32/suppl_1/S44/1916905
by guest
on 20 February 2018
 Social Cognition and Functional Outcome

Table 3. Continued

Study Participants SC Measures FO Measures Major Findings

Lysaker et al51 40 S or SA outpatients ASQ Community d Making a greater

MA = 46 function—QLS: number of stable
Male: 97.5% interpersonal attributions predicted
Yrs Ed: 12.5 function, community 8% of the variance in
Yrs Ill: ~21.4 participation interpersonal function,
Clor eq: ? 16% in community
participation
d When cognitive
variables were
covaried, the
relationships with the
ASQ were the same
except for community
participation (NS)
d Effect sizes were small
to moderate range and
moderate to large
range, respectively
d Power for effect size
of r = .3 is 0.461
Waldheter et al52 29 S or SA inpatients AIAQ Social behavior in d Frequency of violence
MA = 33 IPSAQ milieu: Modified correlated with AIAQ
Male: 86% Overt Aggression hostility bias in
Yrs Ed: 10.6 Scale accidental situations
Yrs Ill: ? (r = .407, P < .05) but
Clor eq: 698–895 not in intentional (r =
ÿ.010) or ambiguous
(r = .053) situations
d Severity of violence
was not significantly
correlated with any
AIAQ hostility bias
(accidental r = .368,
intentional r = .129,
ambiguous r = .106)
d The IPSAQ
personalizing bias was
correlated with severity
(r = .325, P < .05) but
not history (r = .269) of
violence
d AIAQ hostility bias for
ambiguous situations
and the IPSAQ
personalizing bias
together predicted 4%
of the variance in
severity of violence
d 25% of effect sizes were
minimal to small range,
37.5% were small to
moderate range, and
37.5% were moderate to
large range
d Power for effect size of
r = .3 is 0.343

Note: SC = Social Cognition; NC = Neurocognition; SA = Schizoaffective; MA = Mean Age; NS = Not Significant; Yrs Ed = Years of
Education; Yrs Ill = Number of Years Ill; Clor eq = Chlorpromazine equivalent (mg/d); AIAQ = Ambiguous Intentions Attributions
Questionnaire (Combs et al, in preparation); ASQ = Attributional Style Questionnaire118; Burglar Task119; Cigarettes Task120;
Disability Assessment Schedule (WHO)121; Hinting Task50; Ice Cream Van Task122; IPSAQ = Internal, Personal, and Situational
Attributions Questionnaire123; Modified Overt Aggression Scale124; Sally and Anne Task125; QLS = Quality of Life Scale.56

S54
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article-abstract/32/suppl_1/S44/1916905
by guest
on 20 February 2018
 S. M. Couture et al.

Table 4. Multiple Measures of Social Cognition (SC) and Functional Outcome (FO)

Study Participants SC Measures FO Measures Major Findings

Brune73 23 S inpatients or day EP: 36 photos from Social behavior on d BSM correlated with ToM
clinic attendees Ekman and Friesen milieu—SBS: total, questionnaire (r = ÿ.421,
MA = 38 Pictures of Facial BSM (mild to severe P < .05) but not ToM
Male: 78.2% Affect behavior problems), sequencing (r = ÿ.261), ToM
Yrs Ed: ? ToM: 6 Cartoon picture BSS (severe behavior time (r = ÿ.073), ToM total
Yrs Ill: 12.3 stories (sequencing problems only) (r = ÿ.366)
Clor eq: ? and time scores d BSS correlated with ToM total
derived), ToM (r = ÿ.444, P < .05) and ToM
questionnaire; also questionnaire (r = ÿ.524,
combined these two P < .05) but not ToM
for ToM total score sequencing (r = ÿ.308) or ToM
time (r = ÿ.165); BSS no longer
correlated with ToM total when
IQ controlled for (r = ÿ.27,
P = .22)
d No correlation between EP and
BSM (r = ÿ.086), BSS
(r = ÿ.082) or SBS total
(r = ÿ.005)
d No correlations between ToM
and SBS total (sequencing,
r = ÿ.188; time, r = .081;
questionnaire, r = ÿ.264; total,
r = ÿ.245)
d ToM questionnaire added 15%
of the variance in BSS after
duration of illness and IQ
d For EP, all effect sizes were
minimal to small range
d For ToM, 16.7% of effect sizes
were minimal to small range,
41.7% were small to moderate
range, 33.3% were moderate to
large range, and 8.3% were large
d Power for effect size of r = .3
is 0.275
Ihnen et al69 26 S outpatients EP: FEIT, FEDT Social skills: d FEIT correlated with
MA = 33 SP: SCRT Conversation probe overall social skills (r = .44,
Male: 57.6% role play rated for: P < .05), speech clarity (r = .50,
Yrs Ed: 12.1 Overall social skill, P < .01), and involvement
Yrs Ill: ? clarity, fluency, affect, (r = .34, P < .05) but not fluency
Clor eq: 698 gaze, involvement, (r = .08), affect (r = .32), gaze
and asks questions (r = ÿ.29) or asks questions
(r = .09)
d FEDT not correlated with
any skills (overall r = .17,
speech clarity r = .29, fluency
r = .12, affect r = .07,
involvement r = .18, ask
questions r = .08) except gaze
(r = ÿ.39, P < .05)
d SCRT not related to any skills
(overall r = .14, fluency r = .27,
affect r = .09, gaze r = ÿ.17,
involvement r = .23, asks
questions r = ÿ.04), except
clarity (r = .38, P < .05)
d After multiple test correction,
only clarity and FEIT were
significantly correlated

S55
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article-abstract/32/suppl_1/S44/1916905
by guest
on 20 February 2018
 Social Cognition and Functional Outcome

Table 4. Continued

Study Participants SC Measures FO Measures Major Findings

d Backward multiple regression
found FEIT was a significant
predictor of overall social skill
(b = .37), greater speech clarity
(25% of the variance); FEDT
was a significant predictor of
gaze (b = ÿ.41)
d For EP, 28.5% of effect sizes
were minimal to small range,
35.7% were small to moderate
range, 28.5% were moderate to
large range, and 7.2% were
large
d For SP, 28.5% of effect sizes
were minimal to small range,
57.1% were small to moderate
range, and 14.3% were
moderate to large range
d Power for effect size of r = .3 is
0.309
Penn et al62 27 S or SA inpatients EP: Pictures of Facial Social behavior on d EP associated with neatness at
MA = 34 Affect milieu—NOSIE: staff Bonferroni level (r = .54, P <
Male: 66.7% SP: Sequencing task ratings for social .01), but social competence (r =
Yrs Ed: ? interest, neatness, .37, P < .05) and social interest
Yrs Ill: ? social competence (r = .34, P < .05) did not meet
Clor eq: 923 correction criteria
d SP not related to social
competence (r = ÿ.31 and .12),
social interest (r = ÿ.19 and .07)
or neatness (r = ÿ.26 and .24)
d For EP, 66.7% of effect sizes are
moderate to large range, 33.3%
are large
d For SP, 16.7% of effect sizes are
minimal to small range, 66.7%
are small to moderate range,
and 16.7% are moderate to
large range
d Power for effect size of r = .3
is 0.321
Pinkham and Penn68 49 S or SA outpatients EP: FEIT, FEDT, Social d Of the EP measures, BLERT
MA = 33 BLERT skills—conversation (r = .38, P < .01) and FEIT (r =
Male: 57% SP: SCST (time, probe role play using .32, P < .05) were significantly
Yrs Ed: 14.3 accuracy) overall rating of social related to social skill but the
Yrs Ill: 10.4 ToM: Hinting Task, skill FEDT was not (r = .224)
Clor eq: 352.65 ToM vignettes d Of the SP measures, both time
(r = ÿ.497, P < .01) and
accuracy (r = .406, P < .01) on
the SCST were significantly
correlated with social skill
d Of the ToM measures, both
Hinting (r = .387, P < .05) and
ToM vignettes (r = .456, P <
.05) were significantly
associated with social skill
d Addition of all social cognition
measures predicting social skill
(except FEDT) to a regression
containing cognition added 26%
variance

S56
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article-abstract/32/suppl_1/S44/1916905
by guest
on 20 February 2018
 S. M. Couture et al.

Table 4. Continued

Study Participants SC Measures FO Measures Major Findings

d In regression, only significant
predictor was SCST time, which
accounted for 7% of the
variance in social skill
d For EP, 66.7% effect sizes were
moderate to large range, and
33.3% were small to moderate
range
d For SP and ToM, all effect sizes
were moderate to large range
d Power for effect size of r = .3
was 0.548

Note: NC = Neurocognition; S = Schizophrenia; SA = Schizoaffective; MA = Mean Age; ToM = Theory of Mind; Yrs Ed = Years of
Education; Yrs Ill = Number of Years Ill; Clor eq = Clorpromazine equivalent dose (mg/d); BLERT = Bell-Lysaker Emotion
Recognition Test (D. Bell, P. Lysasker, G. Bryson, unpublished data) FEIT = Facial Emotion Identification Task46; FEDT = Facial
Emotion Discrimination Task46; Hinting Task and ToM vignettes50; NOSIE = Nurse’s Observation Scale for Inpatient Evaluation53;
Pictures of Facial Affect47; SBS = Social Behavior Scale54; SCRT = Social Cue Recognition Test42,43; SCST-R = Schema Component
Sequencing Task-Revised.44

domain are the Nurse’s Observation Scale for Inpatient
Evaluation53 and the Social Behavior Scale.54 Commu-
nity functioning encompasses a wide variety of behaviors
and activities related to independent living skills, such as
social or work functioning. Examples of measures used to
assess this construct are the Role Functioning Scale55 and
the Quality of Life Scale,56 with most measures being
rated by the interviewer. The area of social skill was con-
ceptualized as those studies that used role-play tasks in
which specific interactional skills were rated (eg, eye con-
tact, voice volume, meshing, etc). Finally, social problem
solving was defined as the ability of participants to gen-
erate solutions to everyday social problems. The most
commonly used measure in this area is the Assessment
of Interpersonal Problem Solving Skills,57 although
one study used the problem solving subscale of the Inde-
pendent Living Scales.58 It should be noted that when
measures were identified by the authors as assessing ‘‘so-
cial skill’’ or ‘‘social problem solving,’’ they were only in-
cluded in the review if direct observation of social skill or
social problem solving behavior occurred, so as to differ-
entiate it from more cognitively based skills. In the fol-
lowing section, we summarize the relationship between
each social cognitive domain and the 4 indices of func-
tional outcome.
The Relationship of Social Cognition to Functional
Outcome
SP
There is general support for a significant association be-
tween SP and social behavior on the milieu (tables 1
and 4). Specifically, 3 studies reported significant rela-
tionships between SP and social behavior in treatment
S57
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article-abstract/32/suppl_1/S44/1916905
by guest
on 20 February 2018
settings,59–61 although 1 did not.62 The null findings
for Penn et al62 may have been due to the fact that the
measure of SP, a social sequencing task (similar to the
SCST and Picture Arrangement task), was developed
for this study and did not have well-established psy-
chometric properties. SP has also shown a consistent
relationship with community functioning10,62,63 across
a variety of tasks and indices of functioning and predicted
community status (ie, inpatient or outpatient).64 Like-
wise, a robust relationship has been found between SP
and social problem solving,65–67 although these findings
were mostly observed within inpatient samples. In con-
trast, the link between SP and social skill has not been
firmly established because one study supports an associ-
ation,68 whereas two do not.59,69 Although the only no-
table difference between these studies is the higher
educational level of participants in Pinkham et al68 study
that found positive results, it is unclear if this is contrib-
uting to the discrepant findings.
The studies reviewed above generally used correla-
tional analyses to examine the relationship between SP
and functional outcome. A number of recent studies
have extended this line of research to investigate whether
SP mediates the relationship between neurocognition and
functional outcome. Specifically, Sergi et al10 and Vauth
et al61 used path analysis and Structural Equation Mod-
eling, respectively, to show that SP does serve as a medi-
ator between neurocognition and outcome, findings that
have been replicated in a recent study that used multiple
regression.65
In summary, SP has generally demonstrated significant
relationships with most measures functional outcome, as
evidenced by 10 of the 12 studies finding evidence for sig-
nificant associations (see tables 1 and 4), although the

specific link with social skill remains equivocal. Effect
sizes for these studies range the gamut, from null findings
to large effects. Thus, SP may be more relevant for some
social behaviors more than others.
EP
There appears to be a relationship between EP and social
behavior in the milieu (tables 2 and 4),44,70–72 although
there are exceptions.62 The study which did not support
a relationship is methodologically similar to the others;
thus, the reason for this discrepancy is unclear. However,
it is important to note that most studies found evidence
for moderate to large effect sizes for the relationship be-
tween EP and social behavior in the milieu, with the
exception of Brune.73
Consistent with the foregoing, the majority of studies
show a significant association between EP and social
skill,68,69,72 although there are exceptions.70 Again, the
reason for these discrepant findings are unclear, although
Cohen et al70 study had a substantially larger percentage
of males than the other studies. EP also has a fairly con-
sistent relationship with community functioning because
2 studies clearly support an association38,74 and a third
found 3 of 6 correlations of EP and community function-
ing to be statistically significant.39 No study has yet ex-
amined the relationship between EP and social problem
solving. Finally, there is preliminary evidence that EP
may mediate the relationship between neurocognition
and functional outcome.38
In summary, EP is consistently associated with com-
munity functioning, and there is good support for a rela-
tionship with social behavior in the milieu and social skill
as well. Finally, the relationship of EP to social problem
solving is unknown.
ToM
To date, few studies have examined the relationship be-
tween ToM and functional outcome.75 Brune73 examined
the relationship between ToM and social behavior in the
milieu and found that 3 of the 11 correlations between
these domains were statistically significant. However, it
should also be noted that of the nonsignificant correla-
tions, only 2 would be interpreted as a null effect (ie,
r < .1). Pinkham and Penn68 found that performance
on the Hinting task was associated with overall social skill
among outpatients with schizophrenia. In the only study
examining the relationship between ToM and community
functioning, 5 of the 11 correlations conducted between
a combined index of ToM or second-order ToM and
community functioning were significant; none were sig-
nificant if only first-order ToM performance was exam-
ined.76 Additionally, ToM was related to premorbid
social functioning as coded (poor or good) from chart
records.77 Finally, no study to date has examined the re-
lationship between ToM and social problem solving.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article-abstract/32/suppl_1/S44/1916905
by guest
on 20 February 2018
Social Cognition and Functional Outcome
Thus, given the relative paucity of studies in this area, it
is difficult to draw firm conclusions about the relation-
ship between ToM and any one domain of functional
outcome. However, there is some preliminary evidence
that ToM is related to social skill, community function-
ing, and social behavior in the milieu, although these
results clearly require replication. It should be noted
that all these studies found at least some significant
results (including Brune73), but few of them presented re-
liability estimates on their ToM measures. This is a critical
methodological issue, given the low reliability reported
for ToM vignettes (.31) of Pinkham and Penn68, which
is a commonly used measure in this area.
AS
Only 2 studies have examined AS and functional out-
come. Lysaker and colleagues51 found that the number
of stable attributions made was related to community
functioning. Waldheter et al52 found that having a ‘‘hos-
tile attributional bias’’ predicted a small, yet significant
amount of variance in aggression on an inpatient unit
(ie, social behavior in the milieu), even after accounting
for previous violence history. Clearly, however, more
research is required before confident conclusions can
be drawn about the relationship of AS to functional
outcome.
Conclusions and Future Directions
The purpose of this review was to examine the relation-
ship between social cognition (SP, EP, ToM, and AS) and
functional outcome (social behavior in the milieu, com-
munity functioning, social skill, and social problem solv-
ing). Based on this review, we have drawn the following
conclusions: First, there is a fairly consistent relationship
between SP and various domains of functional outcome,
particularly social problem solving, social behavior in the
milieu, and community functioning. There is promising,
but still inconsistent, evidence for a relationship between
SP and social skill. Finally, there is growing evidence that
SP may serve as a mediator between neurocognition and
functional outcome. Second, EP appears to have a fairly
consistent, yet modest, relationship with community
functioning, social skill, and social behavior in the milieu,
while no study has examined its relationship with social
problem solving. Finally, one study suggests that EP may
mediate the relationship between neurocognition and
functional outcome.
Third, the domains of ToM and AS have received far
less attention in terms of their functional significance.
Current work is suggestive of a significant association be-
tween ToM and social skills and possibly with commu-
nity functioning and social behavior in the milieu, but
clearly more research is needed to draw firm conclusions.
Only 2 studies have examined the relationship between
S58
 S. M. Couture et al.
attributions and functional outcome. This is likely due
to the fact that AS has typically been studied in the
context of persecutory delusions, rather than functional
outcome. However, findings suggest that attributions
might be related to functional outcome, particularly
those in which the behaviors match the content of the at-
tributional biases (eg, hostile attributional biases and ag-
gressive behavior).52 These conclusions, however, should
be met with caution due to the early and still developing
nature of the literature. As more data become available
on the relationship between social cognition and func-
tional outcome, and some of the methodological prob-
lems plaguing this area are addressed in future studies,
the findings from the current review may or may not
change.
This review raises a number of issues that need to be
considered in future research. At the conceptual level,
a critical question is which aspects of functional outcome
are expected to change to relate to specific domains of
social cognition. In the extant literature, many studies fo-
cus on the notion that there should be a relationship be-
tween social cognition and functional outcome, but these
relationships are generically defined, and do not specify
which domain of social cognition should relate to which
domain of functional outcome. In essence, the field needs
to move from exploratory-based studies to hypothesis-
based ones. For example, one might expect social cog-
nition to be more strongly related to laboratory-based
direct assessments of particular skills, rather than to
community functioning. In fact, performance-based
assessments might provide the most theoretically relevant
link to neurocognition and social cognition in that they
assess whether individuals are capable of performing cer-
tain behaviors in specific situations.78 Of course, these
skills are influenced by factors such as the motivation of
the individual, but arguably, they provide a closer approx-
imation of an individual’s competence in particular areas
than other measures of functional outcome. Broader-
based domains of functional outcome (eg, recreational
and work functioning) are not always strongly related
to performance-based assessments,70,79,80 and in addition,
they may be influenced by factors outside the individual’s
control, such as level of social support, financial means,
personal resources (eg, having an automobile), etc.38
A related conceptual issue is how social cognition
relates to functional outcome. The majority of studies
in this review examined social cognition and functional
outcome at a single time point, thus assuming that
they covary with one another, but with little consider-
ation for causal relationships. In addition, as noted
above, 2 longitudinal studies found evidence that EP
was predictive of functional outcome at a later time
point.38,39 These findings provide preliminary support
for a causal relationship between social cognition and
functional outcome, but clearly more long-term studies
are needed.
S59
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article-abstract/32/suppl_1/S44/1916905
by guest
on 20 February 2018
The review also raises a number of critical methodolog-
ical issues. First, it is essential for future studies to use
well-defined measures of functional outcome and multi-
ple measures of social cognition to help elucidate the rela-
tionships between these constructs. Currently, it is
difficult to examine specific relationships or employ
meta-analytic techniques, given the different measures
utilized across studies. Of course, the National Institute
of Mental Healths’ Measurement and Treatment Re-
search to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia program
(MATRICS)81,82 is an important step in this direction be-
cause well-defined measures of neurocognition have been
chosen to comprise this battery (and a number of social
functioning tasks are included under secondary out-
comes). However, only a single social cognitive measure
is included in the MATRICs battery (the Mayer-Salovey-
Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test),83 and it does not
address the range of social cognitive abilities impaired
in schizophrenia. Second, it is important for future stud-
ies to clearly operationally define the constructs of inter-
est as well as to utilize measures with sound psychometric
properties. For example, we noted that basic psychomet-
ric information for ToM measures, such as reliability and
validity, are often not presented and, when they are, their
coefficients are not satisfactory,68 a problem that also has
been observed for measures of EP.72
Third, sample characteristics, such as years of educa-
tion achieved, duration of illness, and medication dos-
ages, were inconsistently reported. Relatedly, over half
of the reviewed studies had samples with over 70% of
the participants being male. Given that schizophrenia
occurs fairly often in females and that females with
schizophrenia may have different illness trajectories
and perhaps better social functioning, treatment re-
sponse, and neuropsychological abilities than males,84–86
it is critical for future work to attempt to recruit women
with schizophrenia more heavily.
Fourth, over half of the research in this area included
only inpatients. Although improving functioning in treat-
ment settings (ie, social behavior in the milieu) is a valu-
able treatment goal, increasing current understanding of
outpatient community functioning may be more pressing,
given the move toward community-based care and that
the largest subgroup of individuals with schizophrenia
are outpatients.87 And finally, most studies were under-
powered. Specifically, 65% of studies had power esti-
mates of .50 or less for detecting a moderate effect
size, whereas only 17% of studies had adequate power
of .80. Thus, extant research in this area may be under-
estimating significant findings due to the majority of the
studies suffering from low statistical power.
Despite these limitations, it is clear that significant
relationships exist between the domains of social cog-
nition and functional outcome. Given the preliminary
evidence that social cognition does have functional signif-
icance in schizophrenia, there has been growing interest

in devising interventions aimed at improving functional
outcomes via remediation of social cognitive deficits. The
rationale for this endeavor is further strengthened by the
fact that prominent current interventions, such as symp-
tom-focused cognitive behavior therapy (CBT), show
limited generalizability to improvements in social func-
tioning.88–90
The social cognitive interventions that have been devel-
oped to date can be classified as either ‘‘targeted’’ or
‘‘broad based.’’ Targeted interventions focus on a specific
social cognitive domain (eg, EP), whereas broad-based
interventions combine a variety of psychosocial appro-
aches, including cognitive remediation, social skills train-
ing, and social cognitive skill building. Several targeted
interventions have been shown to improve EP in schizo-
phrenia.91–96 Similarly, broad-based interventions have
been found to improve some of the cognitive and social
cognitive skills that they have targeted.97–102 These find-
ings are promising but also highlight several key issues
that remain unaddressed. First, can we expect the narrow
focus of targeted interventions to yield improvements
across social cognitive domains or to generalize to social
functioning? Second, if targeted interventions are too
narrow, are broad-based interventions too burdensome?
That is, is it necessary to stack social cognitive training
atop intensive cognitive remediation and social skills
training or might social cognitive training alone be suf-
ficient to improve social functioning?
In an effort to address these issues, our research group
has recently developed a social cognitive intervention
that targets the 3 major domains that are impaired in
schizophrenia: EP, ToM, and AS. Social Cognition
and Interaction Training (SCIT) is an empirically de-
rived, multimodal, 24-week group intervention for indi-
viduals with schizophrenia. Preliminary results from
SCIT are promising. In our first (uncontrolled) pilot
study, we showed that SCIT was associated with im-
provements in ToM, AS, and symptoms and that social
cognitive and symptom improvement was independent
of one another.103 In a second pilot study, an initial group
of participants who received SCIT showed improvement
in all 3 social cognitive domains (EP, ToM, and attri-
butions) as well as social functioning (as measured by
the Social Functioning Scale104 and aggression on the
ward (as measured by incident reports) and showed a
reduced need for closure and better tolerance for ambi-
guity (D. R. Combs, S. D. Adams, D. L. Penn, D. L.
Roberts, J. Tiegreen, P. Stem, unpublished data, 2006)
(as measured by the Need for Closure Scale).105 All effect
sizes were in the medium to large range. Although prom-
ising, these preliminary, open-trial results require replica-
tion in a controlled study before confident conclusions
can be drawn.
At the current juncture, it is unclear how successful
these social cognitive interventions will be; similar
attempts in the cognitive remediation literature have
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article-abstract/32/suppl_1/S44/1916905
by guest
on 20 February 2018
Social Cognition and Functional Outcome
been met with only modest success in improving neuro-
cognitive abilities106 or in impacting functional out-
come.107 However, it is hoped that over time, these
interventions will play a prominent role—alongside med-
ication management, CBT, social skills training, and cog-
nitive remedation—in addressing the perennial riddle of
improving functional outcome in schizophrenia.
Acknowledgments
This literature review was supported in part by a grant
from Johnson and Johnson to D.L.P. We thank Amy
Pinkham for creating the figure.
References
1. Bellack AS, Morrison RL, Wixted JT, Mueser KT. An anal-
ysis of social competence in schizophrenia. Br J Psychiatry.
1990;156:809–818.
2. Davidson M, Reichenberg A, Rabinowitz J, Weiser M,
Kaplan Z. Behavioral and intellectual markers for schizo-
phrenia in apparently healthy male adolescents. Am J Psy-
chiatry. 1999;156:1328–1335.
3. Dworkin RH, Cornblatt BA, Friedmann R, et al. Childhood
precursors of affective vs. social deficits in adolescents at risk
for schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 1993;19:563–577.
4. Hans SL, Auerbach JG, Asarnow JR, Styr B, Marcus J.
Social adjustment of adolescents at risk for schizophrenia:
the Jerusalem infant development study. J Am Acad Child
Adolesc Psychiatry. 2000;39:1406–1414.
5. Penn DL, Corrigan PW, Bentall RP, Racenstein JM,
Newman L. Social cognition in schizophrenia. Psychol
Bull. 1997;121:114–132.
6. Perlick D, Stastny P, Mattis S, Teresi J. Contribution of
family, cognitive, and clinical dimensions to long-term out-
come in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 1992;6:257–265.
7. Sullivan G, Marder SR, Liberman RP, Donahoe CP, Mintz
J. Social skills and relapse history in outpatient schizo-
phrenics. Psychiatry. 1990;60:340–345.
8. Tien AY, Eaton WW. Psychopathologic precursors and
sociodemographic risk factors for the schizophrenia syn-
drome. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1992;49:37–46.
9. Green MF. What are the functional consequences of neuro-
cognitive deficits in schizophrenia? Am J Psychiatry. 1996;
153:321–330.
10. Sergi MJ, Rassovsky Y, Nuechterlein KH, Green MF. So-
cial perception as a mediator of the influence of early visual
processing on functional status in schizophrenia. Schizophr
Res. 2006;163:448–454.
11. Green MF, Kern RS, Braff DL, Mintz J. Neurocognitive
deficits and functional outcome in schizophrenia: are we
measuring the ‘‘right stuff’’? Schizophr Bull. 2000;26:119–
136.
12. Brothers L. The social brain: a project for integrating pri-
mate behavior and neurophysiology in a new domain. Con-
cepts Neurosci. 1990;1:27–61.
13. Adolphs R. The neurobiology of social cognition. Curr Opin
Neurobiol. 2001;11:231–239.
14. Adolphs R. Investigating the cognitive neuroscience of
social behavior. Neuropsychologia. 2003;41:119–126.
S60
 S. M. Couture et al.
15. Blakemore SJ, Frith CD. How does the brain deal with the
social world? Neuroreport: For Rapid Commun Neurosci Res.
2004;15:119–128.
16. Bozikas VP, Kosmidis MH, Anezoulaki D, Giannakou M,
Karavatos A. Relationship of affect recognition with psy-
chopathology and cognitive performance in schizophrenia.
J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2004;10:549–558.
17. Lee KH, Farrow TFD, Spence SA, Woodruff PWR. Social
cognition, brain networks, and schizophrenia. Psychol Med.
2004;34:391–400.
18. Phillips ML, Drevets WC, Rauch SL, Lane RD. Neuro-
biology of emotion perception I: the neural basis of normal
emotion perception. Biol Psychiatry. 2003;54:504–514.
19. Pinkham AE, Penn DL, Perkins DO, Lieberman J. Implica-
tions for the neural basis of social cognition for the study of
schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry. 2003;160:815–824.
20. Bryson G, Bell MD, Lysaker PH. Affect recognition in
schizophrenia: a function of global impairment or a specific
cognitive deficit. Psychiatry Res. 1997;71:105–113.
21. Kee KS, Kern RS, Green MF. Perception of emotion and
neurocognitive functioning in schizophrenia: what’s the
link? Psychiatry Res. 1998;81:57–65.
22. Kohler C, Bilker WB, Hagendoorn M, Gur RE, Gur RC.
Emotion recognition deficit in schizophrenia: association
with symptomatology and cognition. Biol Psychiatry.
2000;48:127–136.
23. Penn DL, van der Does A, Spaulding WD, Garbin C,
Linszen D, Dingemans P. Information processing and social
cognitive problem solving in schizophrenia: assessment of
interrelationships and changes over time. J Nerv Ment Dis.
1993;181:13–20.
24. Sachs G, Steger-Wuchse D, Krypsin-Exner I, Gur RC,
Katschnig H. Facial recognition deficits and cognition in
schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2004;68:27–35.
25. Schneider F, Gur RC, Gur RE, Shtasel DL. Emotional
processing in schizophrenia: neurobehavioral probes in
relation to psychopathology. Schizophr Res. 1995;17:
67–75.
26. Silver H, Shlomo N. Perception of facial emotions in chronic
schizophrenia does not correlate with negative symptoms
but correlates with cognitive and motor dysfunction. Schiz-
ophr Res. 2001;52:265–273.
27. Green MF, Olivier B, Crawley JN, Penn DL, Silverstein S.
Social cognition in schizophrenia: recommendations from
the MATRICS new approaches conference. Schizophr Bull.
2005;31:882–887.
28. Bentall RP, Corcoran R, Howard R, Blackwood N,
Kinderman P. Persecutory delusions: a review and theoreti-
cal interpretation. Clin Psychol Rev. 2001;21:1143–1192.
29. Gilbert DT, Pelham BW, Krull DS. On cognitive busyness:
when person perceivers meet persons perceived. J Pers Soc
Psychol. 1988;54:733–740.
30. Bentall RP, Swarbrick R. The best laid schemas of
paranoid patients: autonomy, sociotropy, and need for
closure. Psychol Psychother Theory Res Pract. 2003;76:
163–171.
31. Colbert SM, Peters ER. Need for closure and jumping to
conclusions in delusion-prone individuals. J Nerv Ment
Dis. 2002;170:27–31.
32. Freeman D, Garety PA, Fowler D, Kuipers E, Bebbington
PE, Dunn G. Why do people fail to choose more realistic
explanations for their experiences? An empirical investiga-
tion. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2004;72:671–680.
S61
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article-abstract/32/suppl_1/S44/1916905
by guest
on 20 February 2018
33. Garety PA, Freeman D, Jolley S, et al. Reasoning, emotions,
and delusional conviction in psychosis. J Abnorm Psychol.
2005;114:373–384.
34. Kinderman P, Dunbar R, Bentall RP. Theory of mind defi-
cits and causal attributions. Br J Psychol. 1998;89:191–204.
35. Randall F, Corcoran R, Day JC, Bentall RP. Attention,
theory of mind, and causal attributions in people with per-
secutory delusions. A preliminary investigation. Cog Neu-
ropsy. 2003;8:287–294.
36. Taylor JL, Kinderman P. An analogue study of attributional
complexity, theory of mind deficits and paranoia. Br J Psy-
chol. 2002;93:137–140.
37. Woodward TS, Moritz S, Cuttler C, Whitman JC. Contribu-
tion of a cognitive bias against disconfirmatory evidence to
delusions in schizophrenia. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol.
2006;28:605–617.
38. Brekke JS, Kay DD, Kee KS, Green MF. Biosocial path-
ways to functional outcome in schizophrenia. Schizophr
Res. 2005;80:213–225.
39. Kee KS, Green MF, Mintz J, Brekke JS. Is emotion process-
ing a predictor of functional outcome in schizophrenia?
Schizophr Bull. 2003;29:487–497.
40. Lipsey MW, Wilson DB. Practical Meta-Analysis. Thou-
sand Oaks, Calif: Sage; 2001.
41. Penn DL, Addington J, Pinkham A. Social cognitive impair-
ments. In: Lieberman JA, Stroup TS, Perkins DO, eds.
American Psychiatric Association Textbook of Schizophrenia.
Arlington, Va: American Psychiatric Publishing Press Inc;
2006:261–274.
42. Corrigan PW, Buican B, Toomey R. Construct validity of
two tests of social cognition in schizophrenia. Psychiatry
Res. 1996;63:77–82.
43. Corrigan PW, Garman A, Nelson D. Situational feature rec-
ognition in schizophrenic outpatients. Psychiatry Res.
1996;62:251–257.
44. Corrigan PW, Addis IB. The effects of cognitive complexity
on a social sequencing task in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res.
1995;16:137–144.
45. Rosenthal R, Hall JA, DiMatteo MR, Rogers PL, Archer
D. Sensitivity to Nonverbal Communication: The PONS
Test. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1979.
46. Kerr SL, Neale JM. Emotion perception in schizophrenia:
specific deficit or further evidence of generalized poor per-
formance? J Abnorm Psychol. 1993;102:312–318.
47. Ekman P, Friesen WV. Pictures of Facial Affect. Palo Alto,
Calif: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1976.
48. Bell D, Lysasker P, Bryson G. Positive and negative affect
recognition in schizophrenia: a comparison with substance
abuse and normal controls. Psychiatry Res. 1997;73:73–82.
49. Bellack AS, Blanchard JJ, Mueser KT. Cue availability and
affect perception in schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 1996;
22:535–544.
50. Corcoran R. Theory of mind and schizophrenia. In:
Corrigan PW, Penn DL, eds. Social Cognition and Schizo-
phrenia. Washington, DC: American Psychological Associa-
tion; 2003:149–174.
51. Lysaker PH, Lancaster RS, Nees MA, Davis LW. Attribu-
tional style and symptoms as predictors of social function
in schizophrenia. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2004;41:225–232.
52. Waldheter EJ, Jones NT, Johnson ER, Penn DL. Utility of
social cognition and insight in the prediction of inpatient vi-
olence among individuals with a severe mental illness. J Nerv
Ment Dis. 2005;193:609–618.

53. Honigfeld R, Gillis R, Klett JC. NOSIE-30: a treatment
sensitive ward behaviour scale. Psychol Rep. 1996;191:
180–182.
54. Wykes T, Sturt E. The measurement of social behaviour in
psychiatric patients: an assessment of the reliability and val-
idity of the SBS schedule. Br J Psychiatry. 1986;148:1–11.
55. Goodman SH, Sewell DR, Cooley EL, Leavitt N. Assessing
levels of adaptive functioning: the role functioning scale.
Community Ment Health J. 1993;29:119–131.
56. Heinrichs DW, Hanlon T, Carpenter WT. The quality of life
scale: an instrument for rating the schizophrenic deficit
syndrome. Schizophr Bull. 1984;10:388–398.
57. Donahoe CP, Carter MJ, Bloem WD, Hirsch GL, Laasi N,
Wallace CJ. Assessment of interpersonal problem-solving
skills. Psychiatry. 1990;53:329–339.
58. Loeb PA. ILS: Independent Living Scales Manual. San
Antonio, Tex: The Psychological, Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich; 1996.
59. Appelo MT, Woonings FM, VanNieuwenhuizen CJ,
Emmelkamp PMG, Sloof CJ, Louwerens JW. Specific skills
and social competence in schizophrenia. Acta Psychiatr
Scand. 1992;85:419–422.
60. Penn DL, Ritchie M, Francis J, Combs D, Martin J. Social
perception in schizophrenia: the role of context. Psychiatry
Res. 2002;109:149–159.
61. Vauth R, Rusch N, Wirtz M, Corrigan PW. Does social cog-
nition influence the relation between neurocognitive deficits
and vocational functioning in schizophrenia? Psychiatry
Res. 2004;128:155–165.
62. Penn DL, Spaulding W, Reed D, Sullivan M. The relation-
ship of social cognition to ward behavior in chronic schizo-
phrenia. Schizophr Res. 1996;20:327–335.
63. Kim J, Doop ML, Blake R, Park S. Impaired visual recog-
nition of biological motion in schizophrenia. Schizophr
Res. 2005;77:299–307.
64. Revheim N, Medalia A. Verbal memory, problem-solving
skills and community status in schizophrenia. Schizophr
Res. 2004;68:149–158.
65. Addington J, Saeedi H, Addington D. Facial affect recogni-
tion: a mediator between cognitive and social functioning in
psychosis? Schizophr Res. 2006;85:143–150.
66. Corrigan PW, Toomey R. Interpersonal problem solving
and information processing in schizophrenia. Schizophr
Bull. 1995;21:395–403.
67. Toomey R, Wallace CJ, Corrigan PW, Schuldberg D, Green
MF. Social processing correlates of nonverbal social percep-
tion in schizophrenia. Psychiatry. 1997;60:292–300.
68. Pinkham AE, Penn DL. Neurocognitive and social cognitive
predictors of interpersonal skill in schizophrenia. Psychiatry
Res. In press.
69. Ihnen GH, Penn DL, Corrigan PW, Martin J. Social percep-
tion and social skill in schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res.
1998;80:275–286.
70. Cohen AS, Forbes CB, Mann MC, Blanchard JJ. Specific
cognitive deficits and differential domains of social function-
ing impairment in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2006;
81:227–238.
71. Hooker C, Park S. Emotion processing and its relationship
to social functioning in schizophrenia patients. Psychiatry
Res. 2002;112:41–50.
72. Mueser KT, Doonan R, Penn DL, et al. Emotion recogni-
tion and social competence in chronic schizophrenia. J
Abnorm Psychol. 1996;105:271–275.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article-abstract/32/suppl_1/S44/1916905
by guest
on 20 February 2018
Social Cognition and Functional Outcome
73. Brune M. Emotion recognition, ‘theory of mind,’ and social
behavior in schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res. 2005;133:
135–147.
74. Poole JH, Tobias FC, Vinogradov S. The functional rele-
vance of affect recognition errors in schizophrenia. J Int
Neuropsychol Soc. 2000;6:649–658.
75. Brune M. ‘‘Theory of mind’’ in schizophrenia: a review of
the literature. Schizophr Bull. 2005;31:21–42.
76. Pollice R, Roncone R, Falloon IRH, et al. Is theory of mind
in schizophrenia more strongly associated with clinical and
social functioning than with neurocognitive deficits? Psycho-
pathology. 2002;35:280–288.
77. Schenkel L, Spaulding W, Silverstein SM. Poor premorbid
social functioning and theory of mind deficit in schizophre-
nia: evidence of reduced context processing? J Psychiatr Res.
2005;39:499–508.
78. McKibbin CL, Brekke JS, Sires D, Jeste DV, Patterson TL.
Direct assessment of functional abilities: relevance to per-
sons with schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2004;72:53–67.
79. Dickerson FB, Parente F, Ringel N. The relationship among
three measures of social functioning in outpatients with
schizophrenia. J Clin Psychol. 2000;56:1509–1519.
80. Penn DL, Mueser KT, Doonan R, Nishith P. Relations be-
tween social skills and ward behavior in chronic schizophre-
nia. Schizophr Res. 1995;15:225–232.
81. Green MF, Nuechterlein KH. The MATRICS initiative: de-
veloping a consensus cognitive battery for clinical trials.
Schizophr Res. 2004;72:1–3.
82. Marder SR, Fenton W. Measurement and treatment re-
search to improve cognition in schizophrenia: NIMH
MATRICS initiative to support the development of agents
for improving cognition in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res.
2004;72:5–9.
83. Mayer JD, Salovey P, Caruso DR. Mayer-Salovey-Caruso
Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) User’s Manual.
Toronto, Ontario: MHS Publishers; 2002.
84. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th ed. text revision. Washing-
ton, DC: Author; 2000.
85. Angermeyer MC, Goldstein JM, Kuehn L. Gender differen-
ces in schizophrenia: rehospitalization and community sur-
vival. Psychol Med. 1989;19:365–382.
86. Goldstein JM, Seidman LJ, Goodman JM, et al. Are there
sex differences in neuropsychological functions among
patients with schizophrenia? Am J Psychiatry. 1998;155:
1358–1364.
87. Brier A. The management of treatment-resistant schizophre-
nia. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 1995;81:41–44.
88. Cather C, Penn DL, Otto MW, Yovel I, Mueser T, Goff D.
A pilot study of functional cognitive behavior therapy
(fCBT) for chronic schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2005;
74:201–209.
89. Garety P, Fowler D, Kuipers E, et al. London-East Anglia
randomised controlled trial of cognitive-behavioural therapy
for psychosis. II: predictors of outcome. Br J Psychiatry.
1997;171:420–426.
90. Gumley A, O’Grady M, McNay L, Reilly J, Power K,
Norrie J. Early intervention for relapse in schizophrenia:
results of a 12-month randomized controlled trial of cogni-
tive behavioral therapy. Psychol Med. 2003;33:419–431.
91. Choi KH, Kwon JH. Social cognition enhancement training
for schizophrenia: a preliminary randomized controlled trial.
Community Ment Health J. 2006;42:177–187.
S62
 S. M. Couture et al.
92. Frommann N, Streit M, Wolwer W. Remediation of facial
affect recognition in patients with schizophrenia: a new
training program. Psychiatry Res. 2003;117:281–284.
93. Penn DL, Combs D. Modification of affect perception def-
icits in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2000;46:217–229.
94. Russell TA, Chu E, Phillips ML. A pilot study to investigate
the effectiveness of emotion recognition remediation in
schizophrenia using the micro-expression training tool. Br
J Clin Psychol. In press.
95. Silver H, Goodman C, Knoll G, Isakov V. Brief emotion
training improves recognition of facial emotions in chronic
schizophrenia: a pilot study. Psychiatry Res. 2004;128:
147–154.
96. Wolwer W, Frommann N, Halfmann S, Piaszek A, Streti M,
Gaebel W. Remediation of impairments in facial affect rec-
ognition in schizophrenia: efficacy and specificity of a new
training program. Schizophr Res. 2005;80:295–303.
97. Brenner HD, Hodel B, Roder V, Corrigan PW. Treatment
of cognitive dysfunctions and behavioral deficits in schizo-
phrenia. Schizophr Bull. 1992;18:21–26.
98. Hodel B, Brenner HD, Merlo M, Teuber JF. Emotional
management therapy in early psychosis. Br J Psychiatry.
1998;172:128–133.
99. Hogarty GE, Flesher S, Urlich R, et al. Cognitive enhance-
ment therapy in schizophrenia: effects of a 2-year random-
ized trial on cognition and behavior. Arch Gen Psychiatry.
2004;61:866–876.
100. Roncone R, Mazza M, Frangou I, et al. Rehabilitation of
theory of mind deficit in schizophrenia: a pilot study of
metacognitive strategies. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2004;14:
421–435.
101. Spaulding WD, Reed D, Sullivan M, Richardson C. Weiler
M. Effects of cognitive treatment in psychiatric rehabilta-
tion. Schizophr Bull. 1999;25:657–676.
102. Van der Gaag M, Kern RS, van den Bosch RJ, Liberman
RP. A controlled trial of cogntive remediation in schizophre-
nia. Schizophr Bull. 2002;28:167–176.
103. Penn DL, Roberts DL, Munt E, Silverstein E, Sheitman B.
A pilot study of Social Cognition and Interaction Training
(SCIT) for schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2006;80:357–359.
104. Birchwood M, Smith J, Cochrane R, Wetton S, Copestake
S. The Social Functioning Scale: the development and vali-
dation of a new scale of social adjustment for use in family
intervention programmes with schizophrenic patients. Br J
Psychiatry. 1990;157:853–859.
105. Webster DM, Kruglanski AW. Individual differences in
need for cognitive closure. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1994;
67:1049–1062.
106. Krabbendam L, Alleman A. Cognitive rehabilitation in
schizophrenia: a quantitative analysis of controlled studies.
Psychopharmacology. 2003;169:376–382.
107. Kurtz MM, Moberg PJ, Gur RC, Gur RE. Approaches to
cognitive remediation of neuropsychological deficits in
schizophrenia: a review and meta-analysis. Neuropsychol
Rev. 2001;11:197–210.
S63
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article-abstract/32/suppl_1/S44/1916905
by guest
on 20 February 2018
108. Baker R, Hall JN. REHAB: a new assessment instrument for
chronic psychiatric patients. Schizophr Bull. 1988;14:97–110.
109. Curran JP. A procedure for the assessment of social skills:
the simulated social interaction test. In: Curran JP,
Monti PM, eds. Social Skills Training: A Practical
Handbook for Assessment and Treatment. New York, NY:
Guilford Press; 1982.
110. Wechsler D. WAIS-R Manual: Wechsler Adult Intelligence
Scale-Revised. San Antonio, Tex: The Psychological,
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich; 1981.
111. Bolton B, Roessler R. The work personality profile: factor
scales, reliability, validity, and norms. Vocat Eval Work
Adjustment Bull. 1986;19:143–149.
112. Zigler E, Levine J. Premorbid competence in schizophrenia:
what is being measured? J Consult Clin Psychol. 1981;49:
96–105.
113. Biehl M, Matsumoto D, Ekman P, Hearn V. Matsumoto
and Ekman’s Japanese and Caucasian Facial Expression
and Emotion (JACFEE): reliability data and cross national
differences. J Nonverbal Behav. 1997;21:3–21.
114. Nowicki S, Duke MP. Individual differences in the nonver-
bal communication of affect: the diagnostic analysis of non-
verbal accuracy scale. J Nonverbal Behav. 1994;19:9–35.
115. Schooler NH, Weissman G. Resource Materials for Commu-
nity Mental Health Program Evaluators. Rockville, Md:
National Institute of Mental Health; 1979.
116. Strauss JS, Carpenter WT. The predictor of outcome in
schizophrenia: I. Characteristics of outcome. Arch Gen Psy-
chiatry. 1972;27:739–746.
117. Munroe-Blum H, Collins E, McCleary L, Nutall S. The so-
cial dysfunction index for patients with schizophrenia and
related disorders. Schizophr Res. 1996;20:211–219.
118. Peterson C, Semmel A, von Baeyer C, Abramson LY,
Metalsky GI, Seligman MEP. The attributional style ques-
tionnaire. Cognit Ther Res. 1982;6:287–300.
119. Frith CD, Corcoran R. Exploring ‘theory of mind’ in people
with schizophrenia. Psychol Med. 1996;26:521–530.
120. Happe F. An advanced test of theory of mind: understand-
ing of story characters’ thoughts and feelings by able autis-
tics, mentally handicapped and normal children and
adults. J Autism Dev Disord. 1994;24:129–154.
121. World Health Organisation. WHO Psychiatric Disability
Assessment Schedule (WHO/DAS) With a Guide to its Use.
Geneva, Switzerland: Author; 1988.
122. Baron-Cohen S. The autistic child’s theory of mind: a case of
specific developmental delay. J Child Psychol Psychiatry.
1989;30:285–297.
123. Kinderman P, Bentall RP. A new measure of causal locus:
the internal, personal and situational attributions question-
naire. Pers Individ Dif. 1996;20:261–264.
124. Kay SR, Wolkenfeld F, Murrill LM. Profiles of aggression
among psychiatric patients: I. Nature and prevalence.
J Nerv Ment Dis. 1988;176:539–546.
125. Baron-Cohen S, Leslie A, Firth U. Do the autistic children
have a ‘Theory of Mind’? Cognition. 1985;21:521–530.